Science

krispos42

(49,445 posts)

15. Yeah,but they have to be close by the plants...

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 12:00 AM

Oct 2012

...which would be out in the middle of nowhere turning wind and solar into gasoline on land that's not being used otherwise.

I'm not saying they couldn't be built, but it would be much faster to simply use the existing road network and keep the deliveries local. Maybe each plant built could supply all the gas stations within 100 miles, and that would be performed by a few tanker trucks making regular runs.

A distributed network of conversion plants across the Midwest and Southwest could ultimately supply 100 million people with automotive fuel, cutting our fossil fuel consumption by a significant portion.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The big question mark over gasoline from air [View all] ROBROX Oct 2012 OP

could coal plants use this process?? Angry Dragon Oct 2012 #1

There wouldn't be much point ... VMA131Marine Oct 2012 #3

What I meant to capture the Co2 that coal plants spew out Angry Dragon Oct 2012 #4

Co2 is fungible ToxMarz Oct 2012 #5

You could. Some algae-to-biodiesel proposals suggest coal plants as a CO2 source NickB79 Oct 2012 #14

That would be as silly as diluting gasoline with alcohol. sofa king Oct 2012 #16

Suck the hydrocarbons out of the air. liberal N proud Oct 2012 #2

Nope caraher Oct 2012 #8

That's one thing they did point out, that it's not economically feasible Warpy Oct 2012 #6

Problems krispos42 Oct 2012 #9

Don't need tanker trucks jeff47 Oct 2012 #12

Yeah,but they have to be close by the plants... krispos42 Oct 2012 #15

One can extend the pipelines as needed jeff47 Oct 2012 #17

My concept is that each plant starts out small... krispos42 Nov 2012 #21

Hydrogen is a problem jeff47 Oct 2012 #13

No question mark caraher Oct 2012 #7

The author should have said something else Confusious Oct 2012 #10

They're wrong. jeff47 Oct 2012 #11

But here is the rub NoOneMan Nov 2012 #23

So since it won't pay of instantly, we should just keep burning stuff like always? jeff47 Nov 2012 #24

Keep burning stuff like always opposed to burning more stuff like always? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #25

Alternatively (and probably more efficiently) Bosonic Nov 2012 #18

Interesting idea... caraher Nov 2012 #19

Don't know the energy requirements of the air technique either Bosonic Nov 2012 #20

More of an E&E post ... eppur_se_muova Nov 2012 #22